a comparison of modern hyperbolic methods for semiconductor … · 2019. 8. 1. · hyperbolic...
TRANSCRIPT
A Comparison of Modern Hyperbolic Methods forSemiconductor Device Simulation: NTK Central Scheme Vs.
CLAWPACK
CARL L. GARDNER*, ANNE GELB† and JUSTIN HERNANDEZ
Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe AZ 85287-1804, USA
(Received 1 May 2001; Revised 1 April 2002)
Two modern hyperbolic methods—a second-order Godunov method in the software packageCLAWPACK and the second-order Nessyahu–Tadmor–Kurganov (NTK) central scheme—arecompared for simulating an electron shock wave in the classical hydrodynamic model forsemiconductor devices.
The NTK central scheme, which does not employ Riemann problem solutions, is described in detail.Special attention is paid in both methods to handling the source terms in the hydrodynamic model.CLAWPACK incorporates the source terms by a splitting method, while our version of the NTK schemeis unsplit.
Keywords: Numerical methods for hyperbolic PDEs; CLAWPACK; Hyperbolic central schemes; NTKcentral scheme
INTRODUCTION
The classical hydrodynamic model has become a standard
industrial simulation tool which incorporates important
“hot electron” phenomena in submicron semiconductor
devices. The hydrodynamic model consists of non-linear
hyperbolic conservation laws for particle number,
momentum, and energy (with a heat conduction term),
coupled with Poisson’s equation for the electrostatic
potential. The non-linear hyperbolic modes support shock
waves—“velocity overshoot” in the parlance of semi-
conductor device physicists.
To accurately compute solutions including sharp
resolution of shock waves, we implemented the hydro-
dynamic model equations in LeVeque’s software package
CLAWPACK‡ (Conservation LAWs PACKage) and in our
general gas dynamical code which uses the Nessyahu–
Tadmor–Kurganov (NTK) central scheme [1]. CLAW-
PACK consists of routines for solving time-dependent non-
linear hyperbolic conservation laws based on higher order
Godunov methods and (approximate) Riemann problem
solutions, while the NTK scheme solves conservation laws
using a modified Lax–Friedrichs central difference
method without appealing to Riemann problem solutions.
We will compare hydrodynamic model steady-state
simulations (including shock waves) using CLAWPACK
and the NTK central scheme of the nþ –n–nþ diode,
which models the channel of a field effect transistor. Steady
state is achieved by simulating in time to equilibrium.
A splitting method is used to incorporate the source
terms in the hydrodynamic model for CLAWPACK, while
our version of the NTK scheme is unsplit. In both numerical
codes, we use an implicit method for the source terms.
THE CLASSICAL HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL
The hydrodynamic model treats the propagation of
electrons in a semiconductor device as the flow of a
charged compressible fluid. The model plays an important
ISSN 1065-514X print/ISSN 1563-5171 online q 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/1065514021000012336
*Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1-480-965-0226. Fax: þ1-480-965-0461E-mail: [email protected]. Research supported in part by the NationalScience Foundation under grant DMS-9706792.
†E-mail: [email protected]. Research supported in part by the Sloan Foundation and in part by the National Science Foundation under grantDMS-0107428.
‡http://www.amath.washington.edu/ , claw/. R.J. LeVeque’s CLAWPACK website.
VLSI Design, 2002 Vol. 15 (4), pp. 721–728
role in predicting the behavior of electron flow in semi-
conductor devices since it exhibits hot carrier
effects missing in the standard drift-diffusion model.
The hydrodynamic description should be valid for devices
with active regions * 0.05 microns.
The hydrodynamic model is equivalent to the equations
of electro-gas dynamics:
›
›tðmnÞ þ
›
›xi
ðmnuiÞ ¼ 0 ð1Þ
›
›tðmnujÞ þ
›
›xi
ðmnuiujÞ þ›P
›xj
¼ 2n›V
›xj
2mnuj
tp
ð2Þ
›W
›tþ
›
›xi
ðuiðW þ PÞ þ qiÞ
¼ 2nui
›V
›xi
2W 2 3
2nT0
� �tw
ð3Þ
7·ðe7VÞ ¼ e2ðN 2 nÞ ð4Þ
where m is the effective electron mass, n is the electron
density, ui is the velocity, mnui is the momentum density,
P ¼ nT is the pressure (Boltzmann’s constant kB is set
equal to 1), T is the temperature, V ¼ 2ef is the potential
energy, f is the electrostatic potential, e . 0 is the
electronic charge,
W ¼3
2nT þ
1
2mnu2 ð5Þ
is the energy density, qi is the heat flux, and T0 is
the temperature of the semiconductor lattice. Indices i, j
equal 1, 2, 3, and repeated indices are summed over.
Equation (1) expresses conservation of electron number
(or mass), Eq. (2) expresses conservation of momentum,
Eq. (3) expresses conservation of energy, and Eq. (4) is
Poisson’s equation. The last terms in Eqs. (2) and (3)
represent electron scattering, which is modeled by the
standard relaxation time approximation, with momentum
and energy relaxation times tp and tw.
The non-linear conservations laws Eqs. (1)–(3) are
simply the Euler equations of gas dynamics for a charged
gas with polytropic gas constant g ¼ 5=3 in a electric field,
with the addition of heat conduction and relaxation terms.
In this investigation we take tp and tw to be constant; we
also set the heat flux qi ¼ 0 since we are interested here in
numerical methods which sharply resolve shock waves.
Note that the hydrodynamic model equations have source
terms on the right-hand sides of Eqs. (2) and (3) from the
relaxation time terms and from the coupling to the electric
field E ¼ 27f:The electron gas has a soundspeed and the electron flow
may be either subsonic or supersonic. In general a shock
wave develops at the transition from supersonic flow to
subsonic flow.
THE n1 –n–n1 DIODE
The hydrodynamic model has been extensively used to
study the nþ –n–nþ diode which models the channel
of a field effect transistor. The diode begins with a heavily
doped n þ source region, followed by a lightly doped n
channel region, and ends with an n þ drain region.
Hydrodynamic model simulations of a steady-state
electron shock wave [2] in a one micron Si semiconductor
device at 77 K were validated in Ref. [3] by a Monte Carlo
simulation of the Boltzmann equation using the DAMO-
CLES program [4]. A shock profile develops in the
channel as the supersonic flow on entering the channel
breaks to a subsonic flow, just like gas dynamical flow in a
Laval nozzle. The electron shock wave is analogous to
the gas dynamical shock wave in the Laval nozzle, where
the nþ –n–nþ doping of the diode corresponds to the
converging/diverging geometry of the Laval nozzle.
The steady-state upwind shock simulations presented in
Ref. [2] were reproduced in Ref. [5] using a time-
dependent “essentially non-oscillatory” (ENO) upwind
scheme, a higher order Godunov method.
The shock computations imply that the electron shock
waves are an integral part of the hydrodynamic model.
The shock waves allow higher electron velocities to
develop in the channel, and provide a richer space charge
structure in the device.
For the transonic computations presented below, we
take a GaAs diode at T0 ¼ 300 K with a 0.25 micron
source, a 0.25 micron channel, and a 0.25 micron drain. In
the n þ region, the doping density N ¼ 5 £ 1017 cm23;while in the n region N ¼ 2 £ 1015 cm23: In GaAs, the
effective electron mass m ¼ 0:063 me at 300 K, where me
is the electron mass, and the dielectric constant e ¼ 12:9:We set tp ¼ tw ¼ 0:2 picoseconds. Since the flow is
subsonic at inflow and outflow, we impose the boundary
conditions n ¼ N at the left and right, T ¼ T0 at the left,
and f ¼ 0 at the left and f ¼ 1 volt at the right.
CLAWPACK
Our main interest here lies with the non-linear hyperbolic
modes of the hydrodynamic model, since they support
shock waves. Implementing a higher order Godunov
method via CLAWPACK yields sharp resolution of these
discontinuities.
CLAWPACK is second-order accurate in regions of
smooth flow and first-order accurate near discontinuities
for the homogeneous conservation laws of gas dynamics.
The best results were obtained using the Roe approximate
Riemann solver and the van Leer flux limiter.
The hydrodynamic model has inhomogeneous source
terms and we use a splitting method to take them into
account. The one-dimensional hydrodynamic model
conservation laws take the form
qt þ f ðqÞx ¼ c ðqÞ ð6Þ
C.L. GARDNER et al.722
where the conserved quantities q ¼ ðmn;mnu;WÞ; the flux
f ðqÞ ¼ ðmnu;mnu2 þ P; uðW þ PÞ ð7Þ
and the source terms
cðqÞ ¼ 2 0; enE þmnu
tp
; enE þW 2 3
2nT0
tW
� �: ð8Þ
LeVeque [6] suggests using a standard splitting or
fractional step method in which one alternates between
solving the homogeneous equation
qt þ f ðqÞx ¼ 0 ð9Þ
and the ordinary differential equation (ODE)
qt ¼ c ðqÞ: ð10Þ
We use the second-order accurate implicit trapezoidal
rule method for solving the ODE [Eq. (10)] to insure
accuracy and stability. Non-linear source terms are
handled by Newton iteration.
Since the hydrodynamic model equations are coupled
with Poisson’s equation for the electrostatic potential, a
elliptic solve must also be performed. To discretize
Poisson’s equation (4) we use a second-order accurate
central difference for the approximation of the second
derivative Vxx. The potential is then updated by means of a
standard direct tridiagonal solver.
Solving the hydrodynamic model Eqs. (1)–(4) over one
timestep Dt involves the following steps:
1. Solve the source term ODE [Eq. (10)] over a timestep
Dt/2.
2. Using step 1 as initial data, solve the gas dynamical
homogeneous conservation laws [Eq. (9)] over Dt.
3. Solve Poisson’s equation (4), using the results from
step 2 as initial data.
4. Solve the source term ODE [Eq. (10)] over a timestep
Dt/2, using the previous results in steps 2 and 3 as
initial data.
The Strang splitting yields second-order accurate
results; in practice steps 1 and 4 are combined except in
the first and last timesteps.
Using CLAWPACK, we performed simulations of the
nþ –n–nþ diode with 300 Dx. The CLAWPACK results
are compared in the Figures with the results of the NTK
central scheme with 300 Dx.
Figures 1–5 present the simulation of the electron shock
wave. The shock wave develops at x < 0:2 microns in
Fig. 1 and with CLAWPACK is spread out over
approximately one or two Dx (see Fig. 2).
Figure 3 displays the doping profile N and steady-state
solution for electron density n. Because of the high density
contrast of the background doping, the shock wave in
density is downplayed. Note the slight cooling in Fig. 4 as
the electrons overcome a small potential barrier at the first
junction, and the dramatic increase in temperature as the
electrons heat up in the channel before entering the drain.
Figure 5 depicts the effects on the electric field of the
electron shock wave and of the space charge n 2 N at
the junctions.
NTK CENTRAL SCHEME
High resolution non-oscillatory central schemes have
recently become popular in solving non-linear hyperbolic
conservations laws. We first consider the one-dimensional
scalar conservation law
ut þ f ðuÞx ¼ 0: ð11Þ
The computation is performed over cells of width
Dx ¼ xjþ1=2 2 xj21=2 given by the piecewise constant
FIGURE 1 Electron velocity in 107 cm/s using CLAWPACK (solid) vs. the NTK central scheme (dotted solution values). x is in 0.1 microns for allfigures.
NTK CENTRAL SCHEME VS. CLAWPACK 723
approximate solution
�uðx; tÞ ¼ ujðtÞ; xj212# x # xjþ1
2ð12Þ
where gridpoints are labeled by j ¼ 0; 1; . . .; N. The
original Nessyahu–Tadmor (NT) scheme [7] was derived
from the prototypical staggered version of the Lax–
Friedrichs (LxF) scheme,
ujþ12ðt þ DtÞ ¼
1
2ðujðtÞ þ ujþ1ðtÞÞ2 l½ f ðujþ1ðtÞÞ
2 f ðujðtÞÞ� ð13Þ
where l ¼ Dt=Dx: As noted in Ref. [7], central schemes
integrate over the entire Riemann fan, taking into account
both left and right traveling waves. Hence there is no need
to employ a Riemann solver. By exploiting this freedom,
we show how high resolution central schemes can be
effectively adapted to numerically solve conservation
laws with source terms. Specifically, since no Riemann
solvers need to be employed for the homogeneous
hyperbolic part of the system, the source terms can be
handled implicitly in an unsplit way, thereby reducing the
overall computational time. This technique will be
demonstrated in the application of a high resolution
central scheme to the hydrodynamic model for semi-
conductor devices. If the source terms are non-linear, then
Newton iteration can be performed, which now involves
repeating the gas dynamical step as well. This repetition
will be computationally expensive, so a semi-implicit
method for the source terms may be substituted.
The idea behind the NT scheme is to reduce the amount
of inherent dissipation in the LxF scheme [Eq. (13)].
This is accomplished by replacing the piecewise constant-
solutions in Eq. (12) with piecewise linear approximations
Ljðx; tÞ ¼ ujðtÞ þ ðx 2 xjÞu0
j
Dx; xj21
2# x # xjþ1
2ð14Þ
FIGURE 2 Closeup of the electron shock wave in velocity.
FIGURE 3 Electron density using CLAWPACK (solid) vs. the NTK central scheme (dotted) and doping profile in 1018 cm23.
C.L. GARDNER et al.724
where the numerical derivative at xj is u0j=Dx: A second-
order scheme is derived by evolving this linear interpolant
in time to produce
ujþ12ðt þ DtÞ ¼
1
2ðujðtÞ þ ujþ1ðtÞÞ þ
1
8ðu0
j 2 u0jþ1Þ
2 l f ujþ1 t þDt
2
� �� �2 f uj t þ
Dt
2
� �� �� �:
ð15Þ
The CFL condition is satisfied by
lx
max›f
›u
�������� , 1
2: ð16Þ
Analogously for systems we have
lx
maxr ðAðuðx; tÞÞÞ ,1
2ð17Þ
where r(·) denotes the spectral radius and A(u ) is the
Jacobian ›f=›u of the flux.
By Taylor expansion, the midpoint values can be
approximated by
uj t þDt
2
� �¼ uj 2
1
2lf 0j ð18Þ
where the numerical flux derivative at xj is f 0j=Dx: Second-
order accuracy is ensured if the numerical derivative and
numerical flux derivative satisfy
u0j
Dx¼ uxjx¼xj
þ OðDxÞ ð19Þ
f 0j
Dx¼ f ðuÞxju¼uðxjÞ þ OðDxÞ: ð20Þ
Guidelines are provided in Ref. [7] for determining the
numerical derivatives [Eqs. (19) and (20)] to ensure that
FIGURE 5 Electric field in volts/cm using CLAWPACK (solid) vs. the NTK central scheme (dotted).
FIGURE 4 Electron temperature in electron volts using CLAWPACK (solid) vs. the NTK central scheme (dotted).
NTK CENTRAL SCHEME VS. CLAWPACK 725
Eq. (15) is TVD (total variation diminishing) in the scalar
case. In practice these conditions are met by
u0j ¼ minmod uDuj21
2;
1
2ðujþ1 2 uj21Þ; uDujþ1
2
� ð21Þ
f 0j ¼ minmod uDf j212;
1
2ðf jþ1 2 f j21Þ; uDf jþ1
2
� ð22Þ
where u [ ½1; 2� and Dujþ1=2 ¼ ujþ1 2 uj: One can
instead use the standard flux derivatives f 0j ¼ AðujÞu0j:
The NT scheme is easily implemented as a predictor–
corrector method
uj t þDt
2
� �¼ ujðtÞ2
l
2f 0j ð23Þ
ujþ12ðt þ DtÞ ¼
1
2ðujðtÞ þ ujþ1ðtÞÞ þ
1
8ðu0
j 2 u0jþ1Þ
2 l f ujþ1 t þDt
2
� �� �2 f uj t þ
Dt
2
� �� �� �:
ð24Þ
The amount of dissipation produced in the NT and NTK
central schemes is inversely proportional to u.
Because of its simplicity in construction and ability to
produce second-order accuracy in smooth regions without
requiring explicit knowledge of the characteristic structure
of the equations, the NT scheme has recently become a
popular choice for simulating semiconductor devices
using the hydrodynamic model [8–10]. Here we modify
the NT scheme for the hydrodynamic model in two
important ways.
First, we adopt the semi-discrete formulation of the NT
scheme introduced in Ref. [1], which we will refer to as
the NTK scheme. In this formulation, the staggered grid
occurs between timesteps. Hence all computation is
performed only on the non-staggered gridpoints, eliminat-
ing the more complicated staggered grid construction used
in all previous applications to semiconductor devices.
Another significant advantage is that tighter control
volumes are used at shock formations, producing sharper
resolution in non-smooth regions. The detailed derivation
of this method can be found in Ref. [1] and is briefly
summarized below. We note that although different orders
of the Runge–Kutta method were applied there to the
semi-discrete NTK method, we improve on both the
efficiency and complexity by implementing the second-
order Adams – Bashforth scheme. No reduction of
accuracy is visible.
Second, in all previous applications of the NT method
to the hydrodynamic model, a splitting technique was used
to perform temporal integration. The source term step was
computed first, and then the advection step was computed
using the results from the source term step as initial
conditions. This is also the usual approach taken by the
Godunov methods for the hydrodynamic model. For
steady-state problems, splitting causes the solution to vary
slightly because of the additional partial timestep required
to complete the method (highly accurate steady-state
solutions can be obtained by modifying the method to
avoid splitting as steady state is approached—see, e.g.
Ref. [11]). Furthermore, two partial steps are required at
each time level, increasing the work and computational
time. By taking advantage of the Riemann solver free
approach in the NT and NTK methods, we are able to
avoid splitting.
We will briefly review the NTK semi-discrete
formulation. Again we evolve in time the piecewise linear
solution [Eq. (14)] at time level n based on cell averages unj
and the reconstructed approximate derivatives ðuxÞnj : We
define
uþjþ1
2
¼ ujþ1 2Dx
2ðuxÞjþ1 ð25Þ
u2jþ1
2¼ uj þ
Dx
2ðuxÞj ð26Þ
as the corresponding left and right intermediate cell
values. If C defines a curve in phase space connecting
u2jþ1=2 and uþ
jþ1=2via the Riemann fan, then the maximum
local speed of propagation at the cell boundary xjþ1=2 is
given by
ajþ12¼
u[Cmaxr
›f
›u
� �: ð27Þ
Knowledge of the maximum local speed allows us to
obtain tighter control volumes at shock formations. The
semi-discrete NTK central scheme for the conservation
law [Eq. (11)] can be written in conservation form as
d
dtujðtÞ ¼ 2
Hjþ122 Hj21
2
Dxð28Þ
with numerical flux
Hjþ12¼
f uþjþ1
2
ðtÞ �
þ f u2jþ1
2
ðtÞ �
2
2ajþ1
2ðtÞ
2uþ
jþ12
ðtÞ2 u2jþ1
2ðtÞ
�: ð29Þ
The maximum local speed is typically taken to be
ajþ12¼ max r
›f
›uðujðtÞÞ
� �; r
›f
›uðujþ1ðtÞÞ
� �� : ð30Þ
As in the case of the original NT scheme, the NTK
scheme is TVD in the scalar case if the approximate
derivatives ðuxÞjðtÞ ¼ u0j=Dx satisfy Eq. (21). Additionally,
the intermediate flux value f ðuþjþ1=2
ðtÞÞ can either be
computed as the traditional flux value of uþjþ1=2
ðtÞ or can be
approximated by fþjþ1=2 ¼ f jþ1 2 Dx=2ðf xÞjþ1; with ðf xÞjþ1
computed as in Eq. (22).
C.L. GARDNER et al.726
We write the hydrodynamic model conservation laws as
qt þ f ðqÞx ¼ Gq ð31Þ
where
G ¼ 2
0 0 0
Em
1tp
0
32
T0
mtw
Em
1tw
0BBB@
1CCCA: ð32Þ
As noted above, one of the main restrictions in using
CLAWPACK is that the hydrodynamic model conserva-
tion laws are solved by splitting the system into advection
and source term steps. This is necessary because the
Riemann problems that must be solved at each timestep
for the homogeneous part of the system cannot be
coupled with the source terms. Until now, the NT method
was also incorporated with a source term step. However,
this splitting is completely unnecessary since the NT and
NTK schemes do not require Riemann solvers. In fact,
the relatively simple structure of the source terms in the
hydrodynamic model enables us to use a mixed explicit–
implicit method, which both improves the stability
restriction on the timestep Dt and decreases the total
number of timesteps. Furthermore, we rid our steady-
state solution of the undesirable side effects of splitting.
Our method works as follows:
1. The semi-discrete formulation can be written as
qt ¼ C½q� þ Gq ð33Þ
where C[q ] denotes the spatial discretization of
2 f(q )x and is computed at the nth time level using
Eq. (28) as
C½qnj � ¼ 2
Hnjþ1
2
2 Hnj21
2
Dx: ð34Þ
2. Poisson’s equation (4) is solved using a standard
tridiagonal matrix solver to obtain Vnj at the nth time
level for each j ¼ 1; . . .; N 2 1. The electric field is
computed as the centered difference approximation
Enj ¼ ðVn
jþ1 2 Vnj21Þ=ð2DxÞ and used in Eq. (32).
3. Time integration is performed by applying the
second-order Adams–Bashforth method for the
conservation part and the trapezoidal rule for
the source terms as
qnþ1j ¼ qn
j þ1
2ð3C½qn
j �2 C½qn21j �Þ þ
1
2ðGqnþ1
j
þ Gqnj Þ: ð35Þ
Figures 1–5 show the profiles of the steady-state
solution. We chose the limiting parameter in Eqs. (21) and
(22) to be u ¼ 1:2:We note that the choice for the limiting value u is not
arbitrary. Figure 6 illustrates the effects of different values
of u on the velocity profile of the electron shock wave. The
simulations of two-dimensional Riemann problems in Ref.
[12] using the NTK central scheme indicate that the best
range of u for two-dimensional gas dynamics is 1 # u #
1:3: The optimal value for resolving the electron shock
wave is u ¼ 1:2: For u $ 1:25 there is an overshoot in the
shock wave, while for u , 1:2 the discontinuity is less
sharp.
CONCLUSION
CLAWPACK resolves the electron shock wave over
approximately one or two Dx (see Fig. 2), while the NTK
central scheme requires three or four Dx, which is typical
of shock resolution for the central schemes. It should be
noted however that the shock simulation with the NTK
FIGURE 6 Closeup of the shock wave in velocity using the NTK scheme for (from bottom to top at x ¼ 1:95) u ¼ 1, 1.2, 1.25, and 1.3.
NTK CENTRAL SCHEME VS. CLAWPACK 727
scheme exhibits no spurious oscillations or overshoot with
u ¼ 1:2:On the one hand, the central schemes are easier to
program than the (higher-order) Godunov methods, are
typically faster by a factor of two or more, and can handle
source terms without splitting. Further, even minor
modifications of the physics of a model can lead to
major changes in the eigenstructure of the partial
differential equation (PDE) system and in the implemen-
tation of higher-order Godunov methods and their
Riemann solvers, while the central schemes remain
unchanged and are in this sense “universal”. On the other
hand, it is easy to incorporate source terms in CLAW-
PACK, and once a system of PDEs is working in
CLAWPACK in one spatial dimension, it is transparent to
extend the simulations to two and three dimensions, and to
make use of automatic mesh refinement.
The current vs. voltage curves—which are the main
focus of semiconductor device simulation in the
microelectronics industry—predicted by CLAWPACK
and the NTK scheme agree to better than six parts in ten
thousand, so unless for mathematical reasons one needs to
resolve shock waves over 1–2 Dx, either method may be
used to advantage.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Eitan Tadmor for valuable
discussions.
References
[1] Kurganov, A. and Tadmor, E. (2000) “New high-resolution centralschemes for nonlinear conservation laws and convection-diffusionequations”, Journal of Computational Physics 160, 214–282.
[2] Gardner, C.L. (1991) “Numerical simulation of a steady-stateelectron shock wave in a submicrometer semiconductor device”,IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 38, 392–398.
[3] Gardner, C.L. (1993) “Hydrodynamic and Monte Carlo simulationof an electron shock wave in a one micrometer nþ –n–nþ diode”,IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 40, 455–457.
[4] Fischetti, M.V. and Laux, S.E. (1988) “Monte Carlo analysis ofelectron transport in small semiconductor devices including band-structure and space-charge effects”, Physical Review B 38,9721–9745.
[5] Fatemi, E., Gardner, C.L., Jerome, J.W., Osher, S. and Rose, D.J.(1991) “Simulation of a steady-state electron shock wave in a
submicron semiconductor device using high-order upwindmethods”, Computational Electronics: Semiconductor Transportand Device Simulation (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston), pp27–32.
[6] LeVeque, R.J. (1992) Numerical Methods for Conservation Laws(Birkhauser Verlag, Basel).
[7] Nessyahu, H. and Tadmor, E. (1990) “Non-oscillatory centraldifferencing for hyperbolic conservation laws”, Journal ofComputational Physics 87, 408–463.
[8] Anile, A.M., Nikiforakis, N. and Pidatella, R.M. (2000) “Assess-ment of a high resolution centered scheme for the solution ofhydrodynamical semiconductor equations”, SIAM Journal onScientific Computing 22, 1533–1548.
[9] Anile, A.M., Romano, V. and Russo, G. (2000) “Extendedhydrodynamical model of carrier transport in semiconductors”,SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 61, 74–101.
[10] Romano, V. and Russo, G. (2000) “Numerical solution forhydrodynamical models of semiconductors”, Mathematical Modelsand Methods in Applied Sciences 10, 1099–1120.
[11] LeVeque, R.J. and Pelanti, M. (2001) “A class of approximateRiemann solvers and their relation to relaxation schemes”, Journalof Computational Physics 172, 572–591.
[12] Kurganov, A. and Tadmor, E. “Solution of two-dimensionalRiemann problems for gas dynamics without Riemann problemsolvers.” To appear.
Carl L. Gardner is Professor of Mathematics at Arizona
State University. His current research interests lie in
classical and quantum semiconductor device simulation,
computational fluid dynamics, astrophysical flows, and the
modelling and simulation of ion transport in the channels
of cellular membranes.
Anne Gelb is Associate Professor of Mathematics at
Arizona State University. Her main interests are the study
of higher order methods for solving partial differential
equations, in particular the applications of spectral
methods to discontinuous functions. A large part of her
research has been devoted to restoring the exponential
convergence qualities to spectral methods for discontinu-
ous functions. Recently she has become interested in
central difference schemes applied to conservation laws,
with applications to semiconductor device simulation and
astrophysical jets.
Justin Hernandez was a graduate student in Mathematics
at Arizona State University when this work was
completed. Currently he is working as a researcher in
computational mathematics.
C.L. GARDNER et al.728
International Journal of
AerospaceEngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2010
RoboticsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Active and Passive Electronic Components
Control Scienceand Engineering
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
International Journal of
RotatingMachinery
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2014
Submit your manuscripts athttp://www.hindawi.com
VLSI Design
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Shock and Vibration
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Civil EngineeringAdvances in
Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Journal of
Advances inOptoElectronics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
SensorsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Modelling & Simulation in EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
DistributedSensor Networks
International Journal of